I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there and
has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked around in
cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of which is not
good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if the experts here
would know if this could be built by a competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe
airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit were never delivered, is
there a source of parts or plans to fabircate them? The one place on the
net I could have gotten some real info seems to have been deleted
(mini500.com)

Anybody?

jim

Jim, it is either the most successful Kit built helicopter ever offered
or the worst murder weapon created by mankind. This would depend on your
peers and their personal experience and your tendency to be impressed by
their opinion. So if you are in fact not just a troll and are a A&P I
think you have enough intellect to answer your own question.

Inspect the kit and use the judgement you would use to make decissions
in your field of expertise and you will be satisfied.



"Jim Anglin" > wrote in message
link.net...
>I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at
>the least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all
>there and has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have
>poked around in cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane,
>some of which is not good and some of which is really bad. I was
>wondering if the experts here would know if this could be built by a
>competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe airplane? If it is true that
>parts of the kit were never delivered, is there a source of parts or
>plans to fabircate them? The one place on the net I could have gotten
>some real info seems to have been deleted (mini500.com)
>
> Anybody?
>
> jim
>

Yes I believe he is just a troll, LOL Just kidding Jim.


Jerry




Bob wrote:
> Jim, it is either the most successful Kit built helicopter ever offered
> or the worst murder weapon created by mankind. This would depend on your
> peers and their personal experience and your tendency to be impressed by
> their opinion. So if you are in fact not just a troll and are a A&P I
> think you have enough intellect to answer your own question.
>
> Inspect the kit and use the judgement you would use to make decissions
> in your field of expertise and you will be satisfied.
>
>
>
> "Jim Anglin" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at
>>the least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all
>>there and has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have
>>poked around in cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane,
>>some of which is not good and some of which is really bad. I was
>>wondering if the experts here would know if this could be built by a
>>competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe airplane? If it is true that
>>parts of the kit were never delivered, is there a source of parts or
>>plans to fabircate them? The one place on the net I could have gotten
>>some real info seems to have been deleted (mini500.com)
>>
>>Anybody?
>>
>>jim
>>
>
>
>

>"Jim Anglin" wrote in message
> I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
> least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there and
> has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked around in
> cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of which is not
> good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if the experts here
> would know if this could be built by a competent rotorwing A&P to be a
safe
> airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit were never delivered, is
> there a source of parts or plans to fabircate them? The one place on the
> net I could have gotten some real info seems to have been deleted
> (mini500.com)

A competent heli A&P would see that he wouldn't touch it for fear of
liability. It could be reworked into a nice machine, but for nearly the same
money, you can buy a Rotorway kit and have a second seat.

D.

Dear Jim,

I am the most qualified person to answer your question. If you believe
the bad things wrote by people here or not, makes absolutely no
deference. The Mini-500 no longer has factory support. Any kit-built
helicopter that has no factory support has no business flying, ever.
Don't take it even if it's free and try to fly it. There is nowhere to
buy parts, but more importantly, your "experts" here about the Mini-500
are totaly lacking in the matter.

Most Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters
Designer of the Mini-500
>


Jim Anglin wrote:
> I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
> least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there and
> has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked around in
> cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of which is not
> good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if the experts here
> would know if this could be built by a competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe
> airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit were never delivered, is
> there a source of parts or plans to fabircate them? The one place on the
> net I could have gotten some real info seems to have been deleted
> (mini500.com)
>
> Anybody?
>
> jim
>
>

It is reasonably safe if you just hover it no more than 3 feet off the
ground. Hover time counts as flight time!! If however you fly it
more than 3 ft high there is about a 10% chance of dying. There has
been 11 deaths from this machine that I know of as of a few years ago.
It has dozens of major problems that are not readily apparent. Many
parts will wear out in less than 100 hours. The engine is under
powered if you weigh more than 150 lb.

The part that is most likely missing is the tail rotor gear box and
they are hard to find.
It is easy to build however there are problems:

1 Engine is underpowered and is a two stroke.
2 If you try to get enough power to hover and fly the carb tuning is
VERY repeat VERY VERY critical or the engine will seize up. This
tuning will change from day to day.
3 The main rotor shaft is KNURLED at a high stress point so it will
not spin in the top bearing. Big stress riser at a critical point.
4 The main drive belt can come off and wrap around the tail rotor
drive shaft causing an excessive drag so high that auto rotation is
impossible. I watched this happen during hover. The main rotor
completely stopped in 15 seconds even at full down collective.
5 The clutch will come apart in less than 50 hours.
6 The rotor pitch bearings are too tight and are brinnelled.
7 Make sure you get a new head for the engine with the new hot water
bypass or a cold seizure is in your future.
8 Replace the common copper wire thermocouple extension wires with
real thermocouple wire or your EGT temperature may be a hundred or
more degrees off. This temperature is CRITICAL if you want the have
the engine keep running.
9 The main gearbox eats itself. Make sure you have a chip detector
installed and believe it when the light comes on.
10 The main rotor blades will not stay in balance. The foam core
moves due to the G loads and or humidity.
11- 101 Even more of the same........

Did I say that it is easy to build and looks neat! It is.
John

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:37:42 GMT, "Jim Anglin"
> wrote:

>I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
>least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there and
>has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked around in
>cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of which is not
>good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if the experts here
>would know if this could be built by a competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe
>airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit were never delivered, is
>there a source of parts or plans to fabircate them? The one place on the
>net I could have gotten some real info seems to have been deleted
>(mini500.com)
>
>Anybody?
>
>jim
>

However I may feel about your past record and past posts to this
newsgroup, I must compliment you on your reply. Without factory
support and availability of parts, the only real use for this aircraft
would be a very great looking lawn ornament. If the engine is still in
new condition, it might be worth something but otherwise...stay clear.


Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> I am the most qualified person to answer your question. If you believe
> the bad things wrote by people here or not, makes absolutely no
> deference. The Mini-500 no longer has factory support. Any kit-built
> helicopter that has no factory support has no business flying, ever.
> Don't take it even if it's free and try to fly it. There is nowhere to
> buy parts, but more importantly, your "experts" here about the Mini-500
> are totaly lacking in the matter.
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
> Dennis Fetters
> Designer of the Mini-500
> >
>
>
> Jim Anglin wrote:
> > I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
> > least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there and
> > has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked around in
> > cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of which is not
> > good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if the experts here
> > would know if this could be built by a competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe
> > airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit were never delivered, is
> > there a source of parts or plans to fabircate them? The one place on the
> > net I could have gotten some real info seems to have been deleted
> > (mini500.com)
> >
> > Anybody?
> >
> > jim
> >
> >

"Jim Anglin" > wrote in message
link.net...
>I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
>least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there and
>has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked around in
>cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of which is not
>good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if the experts here
>would know if this could be built by a competent rotorwing A&P to be a safe
>airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit were never delivered, is
>there a source of parts or plans to fabircate them? The one place on the
>net I could have gotten some real info seems to have been deleted
>(mini500.com)
>
> Anybody?
>
> jim


Where do you want the memorials sent?

Out of curiosity, would any of the Mini500 parts be useful for some
other project or are they just paperweights and doorstops?

Tony

I just thought of a GREAT use for it! Build it and then apply to the
Guniess World Records for the worlds smallest helicopter. It doesn't
actually have to fly or even be approved to fly, all you have to do is
apply. Right now, there are no other candidates so it should qualify.


Anthony W wrote:
> Out of curiosity, would any of the Mini500 parts be useful for some
> other project or are they just paperweights and doorstops?
>
> Tony

Well I guess that settles it. I will tell my cousin to find a different
project. For those of you who replied with help I thank you - for all
others I hope you find help. lol


Jim not a troll Anglin
Harmon Rocket II
RV6 built and sold
RV4 bought and sold
Looking for an RV3 project


"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
news:m2Zmh.2260$Fs2.1781@trnddc05...
>
>
>
> Yes I believe he is just a troll, LOL Just kidding Jim.
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> Bob wrote:
>> Jim, it is either the most successful Kit built helicopter ever offered
>> or the worst murder weapon created by mankind. This would depend on your
>> peers and their personal experience and your tendency to be impressed by
>> their opinion. So if you are in fact not just a troll and are a A&P I
>> think you have enough intellect to answer your own question.
>>
>> Inspect the kit and use the judgement you would use to make decissions in
>> your field of expertise and you will be satisfied.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Anglin" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>
>>>I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
>>>least a couple thousand dollars. As far as I can tell it is all there
>>>and has never been touched by the original purchaser. I have poked
>>>around in cyberspace and learned a little about this airplane, some of
>>>which is not good and some of which is really bad. I was wondering if
>>>the experts here would know if this could be built by a competent
>>>rotorwing A&P to be a safe airplane? If it is true that parts of the kit
>>>were never delivered, is there a source of parts or plans to fabircate
>>>them? The one place on the net I could have gotten some real info seems
>>>to have been deleted (mini500.com)
>>>
>>>Anybody?
>>>
>>>jim
>>>
>>
>>

"Jim Anglin" > wrote in message
link.net...
>I have an opportunity to bring home a Mini 500 kit for no money or at the
>least a couple thousand dollars.

Don't.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dennis fetters:

> Dear Jim,
>
> I am the most qualified person to answer your question. If you believe
> the bad things wrote by people here or not, makes absolutely no
> deference. The Mini-500 no longer has factory support. Any kit-built
> helicopter that has no factory support has no business flying, ever.
> Don't take it even if it's free and try to fly it. There is nowhere to
> buy parts, but more importantly, your "experts" here about the Mini-500
> are totaly lacking in the matter.


That's the same polite and helpful answer that you gave to yourself when
you were sock-puppeting as "planeman"


- planeman NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
- Jul 21 2005 http://tinyurl.com/y3j3qw

"I see Mini-500 helicopters selling on eBay, but much less these days.
Is there someone in the marketplace that can sell me parts if I was
compelled to buy the incomplete one selling now?"


- Dennis Fetters NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
- Jul 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/vasno

"As for the guy that originally asked the question about places to buy
Mini-500 parts, no, there is nowhere to purchase parts."


- planeman NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
- Jul 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/y6ev5r

"THANK YOU!!!
That is all I wanted to know!
I wish everyone else could have been as polite and helpful."

dennis fetters:

> Mini-500 Accident Analysis
> 1995-1998
....

Wow, that accident analysis is overwhelming in completeness. Just like when
you posted it to the rotorcraft group, then came back as sock-puppet
"planeman" to praise it.


- Dennis Fetters NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
- Jul 22 2005 http://tinyurl.com/yjjyue

Mini-500 Accident Analysis
1995-1998 ...


- planeman NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
- Jul 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/wp9d5

I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
has made such a complete report as these people did.

("Methyst" wrote that Dennis Fetters, as planeman, wrote)
>> Mini-500 Accident Analysis
>> 1995-1998

> - planeman NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
> - Jul 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/wp9d5
>
> I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
> overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
> has made such a complete report as these people did.


....and 1998-2006?

Curious


Montblack

A quick check on the NTSB site shows eight more accidents between 1/1/1998
and present date. Three of them were fatal. Four in 1998, two in 2000, two
in 2002, and _nothing_ since then, thank goodness.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Methyst" wrote that Dennis Fetters, as planeman, wrote)
>>> Mini-500 Accident Analysis
>>> 1995-1998
>
>> - planeman NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.235.147.233
>> - Jul 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/wp9d5
>>
>> I just read the complete Mini-500 accident report and found it to be
>> overwhelming in completeness. I can't recall any kit manufacturer that
>> has made such a complete report as these people did.
>
>
> ...and 1998-2006?
>
> Curious
>
>
> Montblack
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> A quick check on the NTSB site shows eight more accidents between 1/1/1998
> and present date. Three of them were fatal. Four in 1998, two in 2000, two
> in 2002, and _nothing_ since then, thank goodness.
>
Probably because they're all either crashed or abandoned by now.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:45:48 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

>A quick check on the NTSB site shows eight more accidents between 1/1/1998
>and present date. Three of them were fatal. Four in 1998, two in 2000, two
>in 2002, and _nothing_ since then, thank goodness.

A more detailed check shows 16 Mini-500 accidents between 1/1/1998 and
12/31/2000. Same period saw 28 Rotorway accidents.

Between 2002 and 2005, four Mini-500s, 29 Rotorways.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:45:48 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>
>>A quick check on the NTSB site shows eight more accidents between 1/1/1998
>>and present date. Three of them were fatal. Four in 1998, two in 2000, two
>>in 2002, and _nothing_ since then, thank goodness.
>
>
> A more detailed check shows 16 Mini-500 accidents between 1/1/1998 and
> 12/31/2000. Same period saw 28 Rotorway accidents.
>
> Between 2002 and 2005, four Mini-500s, 29 Rotorways.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I'd almost credit those numbers to the difference in rotor inertia.

The Rotorway has a very light (relatively) rotor system with
correspondingly lower rotor inertia.

Big difference between 1-2 seconds to dump the collective vs 4-5.


Maintain thy rotor RPM lest the Earth rise up and smite thee...

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> A quick check on the NTSB site shows eight more accidents between
>> 1/1/1998 and present date. Three of them were fatal. Four in 1998, two in
>> 2000, two in 2002, and _nothing_ since then, thank goodness.
>>
> Probably because they're all either crashed or abandoned by now.

I would certainly hope that is the case.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard Riley wrote:
>> An aviation writer friend of mine went to a Robinson training session
> a few years ago. He said you had 1.3 seconds to dump the collective
> in the R22.
>
> He was thinking of writing an article and calling it "Small Helicopter
> Safety: Myth or Fable?"

More recently, Frank Robinson has been reporting it as only 1.1
seconds.
But having said that and having experienced several "throttle chops" in
r-22
helicopters, I can attest that at least my reaction time falls at least
a couple
of tenths below that ! There's nothing like dumping that collective
and feeling
the aircraft pull away from your rear end (no matter how tight those
cheeks
try to hold on to that seat) !

Wayne

Richard Riley wrote:
>> An aviation writer friend of mine went to a Robinson training session
> a few years ago. He said you had 1.3 seconds to dump the collective
> in the R22.
>
> He was thinking of writing an article and calling it "Small Helicopter
> Safety: Myth or Fable?"

More recently, Frank Robinson has been reporting it as only 1.1
seconds.
But having said that and having experienced several "throttle chops" in
r-22
helicopters, I can attest that at least my reaction time falls at least
a couple
of tenths below that ! There's nothing like dumping that collective
and feeling
the aircraft pull away from your rear end (no matter how tight those
cheeks
try to hold on to that seat) !

Wayne

Dennis,

I see you are back with your same old talking points.

As has been explained, a finding of pilot error does not in any way provide
an endorsement of your design. When your design failed, many pilots found
themselves unable to recover in a manner expected from certified aircraft.
That is the standard. It does not address the design failures that
preceded the pilot errors. It does not address the design's ability to
recover from those failures.

You like to blame the dead, especially low-time dead pilots. You might
have forgotten that you marketed your kit to low-time pilots.

Let's look at the chronology again.


1) Everybody gets excited when they see the Cicare CH-6 prototype fly.
2) You and Cicare dissolve your partnership and you are left without a
helicopter to sell.
3) Without access to Cicare's design or the CH-6 demonstration aircraft, you
attempt to copy the design.
4) While you are still designing your new helicopter, you continue to market
and take orders for an unproven design
5) You delivered kits without adequate testing, claiming TBO's of up to 2000
hours, when your prototype only had a a couple of hundred hours, at most.
6) You marketed your kits to low-time pilots


A classic bait and switch.

Assuming that you make the RIGHT decisioin and don't hesitate or thing
about it.
Richard Riley wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2007 14:49:34 -0800, wrote:
>
>
> >More recently, Frank Robinson has been reporting it as only 1.1
> >seconds.
> >But having said that and having experienced several "throttle chops" in
> >r-22
> >helicopters, I can attest that at least my reaction time falls at least
> >a couple
> >of tenths below that !
>
> I've seen medical data that says normal reaction time for an
> expected, life critical event (like, someone draws a gun on you, a car
> pulls out in front of you) is about 3/4 of a second.
>
> So you got that big, .35 second margin to keep you safe. Nothing to
> worry about.

My answer to this post, and below is the last article printed by
KitPlanes Magazine in November 1999 of the flight report wrote by Kin
Armstrong. So if you have already made a negative opinion on the
Mini-500 saga and don't what your opinion to be confused by the facts,
then don't read!!!


anon wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> I see you are back with your same old talking points.


There's nothing like the facts to counter unfounded and false
statements. My talking points stay the same, because they are the true
facts. I, unlike people like you, don't have the luxury of changing or
making up stories, or making up or passing on unfounded or untrue
statements. So yes, you will read what I have to say over and over
again, because those are the facts, much to your apparent dissatisfaction.


> As has been explained, a finding of pilot error does not in any way provide
> an endorsement of your design.


You know, there are people out there that even dispute the fact that
America landed a man on the moon. It just does not matter how much
evidence you put before them, or who provides the evidence, they choose
not to believe it because that is what they want to disbelieve. I give
you Federal accident reports followed up with further company reports,
and still you choose to disbelieve, because that is contrary to what you
want to believe. Even a horse is smart enough to drink water when you
lead him to it enough times, but you will never believe because that is
not what you want to believe, despite the proof or who prints it.


> When your design failed, many pilots found
> themselves unable to recover in a manner expected from certified aircraft.
> That is the standard. It does not address the design failures that
> preceded the pilot errors. It does not address the design's ability to
> recover from those failures.


Wrong. Many Mini-500 owners say absolutely the opposite. In fact,
attached is a report by the professional test pilot Ken Armstrong,
giving the Mini-500 a brilliant review. The Mini-500 he flew the same
bird that flew from Kansas City to Oshkosh, the same bird that flew at
all the air shows. That Mini-500 was 100% stock all the way, built to
factory specs with all factory mods.


> You like to blame the dead, especially low-time dead pilots. You might
> have forgotten that you marketed your kit to low-time pilots.


I only tell the facts. I don't even want to talk about it, let alone
blame live or dead people. But you really haven't given be any
alternatives. You put me on the spot, you blame be for killing people
with a bad design, you continually place me in a position demanding
answers, and I can only answer with the facts. If I said it was not
their fault, then I would be lying.


> Let's look at the chronology again.
> 1) Everybody gets excited when they see the Cicare CH-6 prototype fly.
> 2) You and Cicare dissolve your partnership and you are left without a
> helicopter to sell.
> 3) Without access to Cicare's design or the CH-6 demonstration aircraft, you
> attempt to copy the design.
> 4) While you are still designing your new helicopter, you continue to market
> and take orders for an unproven design
> 5) You delivered kits without adequate testing, claiming TBO's of up to 2000
> hours, when your prototype only had a a couple of hundred hours, at most.
> 6) You marketed your kits to low-time pilots
> A classic bait and switch.


You must write fictional books for living!! You have taken history and
twisted it around to your satisfaction.

I'll tell you what, I'll let Ken Armstrong's article in KitPlanes
Magazine do the speaking for awhile. Ken has over 9000 hours flying 40
different types of helicopters. He was a Military helicopter test pilot,
and currently instructs in helicopters.

BUT EVEN WITH A MAN WITH SUCH IMPECCABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND UNTARNISHED
REPUTATION, someone here will find something to discredit him and his
report on the Mini-500. The truth is written below, and yet some of you
will refuse to believe, simply because it is contrary to what you want
to believe.

After all, you read all the bad stuff about the Mini-500 right here on
this newsgroup by credible people, that you have never met or can even
see and some that don't have names... so it must have been true, right????


********Mini Revolution********

Where is Revolution Helicopter’s Mini-500 series heading?

By Ken Armstrong
KitPlanes Magazine
November 1999 Issue

The Revolution Mini 500 possesses an enviable sales record because of
the strong demand for low-cost, kit-built helicopters. However,
marketing success has created problems for the company and its owners.
Revolution has difficulty keeping up with customer expectations, and
some builders unrealistically expect the helicopter to be snag-¬free
during ownership.
In reality, the Mini 500 is no different from any homebuilt helicopter
- or from any commercial helicopter ever produced. They have all
experienced technical/design problems that required modification, and as
a professional helicopter pilot since 1972, I was often the guinea pig
who found out what those problems were. No helicopter design is perfect,
and there is no fling-wing flying that does not have ongoing problems.
What can you do if you own a Mini 500 or plan to buy one? Approach
ownership with an open mind and anticipate some down time while you
install modifications that Revolution considers mandatory for the safe
operation of the helicopter. If you plan to buy a used Mini 500, ensure
all of the mandatory modifications have been completed.

Is the Mini 500 Safe?.....
Any helicopter is only as safe as the pilot in command. There have been
a number of Mini 500 crashes, a number of them resulting in fatalities,
and there is a common thread among them. Accident data from Revolution
and the NTSB, combined with witness reports, indicate there have been
few if any mechanical failures that were not caused by improper
maintenance. In fact, 100% of the crashes had a pilot error component,
with 43% sharing maintenance/pilot error causal factors. Nearly 75% of
the pilots involved in accidents had less than 100 hours rotary wing
experience, and some didn't even have a helicopter rating (more on this
subject in the flight evaluation). Failure to maintain adequate rotor
rpm was a contributing factor in almost half of the accidents. Another
factor was pilots flying with the wrong carburetor jets for the ambient
conditions - an important consideration when operating these
hard-working engines. Operating with a two-stroke engine entails a
higher risk of engine failure than a four-stroke powerplant would, and
pilots must always be prepared to carry out an autorotation.
Another primary factor in the high accident rate for the Mini 500 (44
accidents out of only a few hundred flying) is that there are many being
flown by pilots with relatively little rotary experience, and in a few
of the accidents the pilots weren't even licensed. In the case of an
engine out, proper training and experience is critical.
But other than the higher incidence of engine failures associated with
two-stroke operation and pilot deficiencies, I don't see any particular
safety risk associated with this helicopter, and I wouldn't hesitate to
fly Mini 500s because the autorotative characteristics are quite
reasonable in the event the Rotax takes a time out.

Who Needs Politics?....
I believe the greatest non-technical problem plaguing the Mini 500 is
the polarization between Revolution and a small number of vocal,
dissatisfied owners. Revolution President Dennis Fetters is blessed and
cursed with a strong personality that has bolstered him with the drive
to create the successful Air Command gyro series and now the affordable
Mini helicopter series. But success often breeds problems, and keeping
up with the calls for technical revisions while attempting to provide
really good customer support has been a challenge at Revolution. As a
result, some of the owners have formed the support group known as the
International Helicopter Builders Association Inc. (IHBAI).
Mentioning this group to Fetters is like waving a red flag at a bull.
He feels the organization is trying to undermine his efforts and has
been dishonest about its aims. The group says it simply wants to find
fixes for Mini 500 problems typically agreed to as excessive vibration
creating frame cracks and transmission gears manufactured by a third
party that were not of sufficient hardness. For more details on these
topics, see the May 1999 KITPLANES©.
Having mentioned this builders group, I should add that I met many Mini
500 owners at Sun'n Fun who have experienced no problems with their
helicopters and are having a blast with them. Responses to company
questionnaires indicate that more than 90% of the attendees at company
training programs are completely satisfied with Revolution's efforts. In
the Internet era, it's all too easy for a few unhappy owners to promote
their discontent.

Builders Support Group....
At the 1999 Sun'n Fun meeting, IHBAI members, under President Bill
Phillips, decided they would not hire an engineering team to modify or
fix the Mini 500's problems because they felt Revolution was adequately
tackling the situation. The 14 attendees almost unanimously expressed a
desire to work with the company on problems and fixes. However, Fetters
wanted no association with this group. For the most part, I found these
owners to be levelheaded and simply wanting a solution to their problems
at a reasonable price so they could continue flying.
Stan Robinson, president of U.S. AirPower, talked about the possibility
of installing the three-cylinder, liquid cooled two-stroke engine
currently undergoing flight test in the Revolution two-place Voyager,
but this is unlikely in the near term, especially without Fetters' blessing.

Solutions Are at Hand....
Fetters has always maintained that the company manufactures
modifications quickly and prices them realistically to support his
clients. After many hours of discussion with him, I can appreciate his
point of view and feel the company is striving assiduously to correct
deficiencies and expand the performance and safety envelope.
Solving vibration problems has been a long slow process not because
Revolution wasn't devoting a lot of time to the solution, but because
rotor system dynamics are complex. The late model Talon (the model name
for the improved Mini 500) I flew for this report had the latest
refinements including mast support with rubber isolation, friction
damper on the cyclic system and trimtabs on the rotor system. These
refinements have apparently reduced the overall vibration level from 10
IPS to 0.01 in hover and 0.1 at 95 mph. Revolution asserts that all of
these modifications are recommended because they work together to
significantly reduce vibration. Minimizing the shaking reduces wear and
tear, extends component life and provides greater system reliability.
All new kits include all of the mast support refinements.
An Engine Information System (EIS) is a new option that constantly
monitors cooling, fuel mixture, lubrication and power output for
enhanced reliability. Although I have not evaluated this $675 package,
it comes complete with all probes, wiring and displays to provide a
visual warning in the form in a red light when an engine parameter has
been exceeded. It’s like buying insurance.

Power Enhancement Package....
The factory demonstrator I flew at Sun 'n Fun, 500FD, had the optional
power enhancement package (PEP) installed. The company recommends that
every Mini 500 owner install this system to improve recovery from low
rotor rpm. Faustino Padilla, a 240-pound Guatemalan pilot/owner who
flies his Mini 500 from a base 5000 feet above sea level at very high
temperatures, claims the PEP makes a world of difference to performance.
The PEP system comprises a tuned exhaust system and special carburetion
settings that provide an additional 18% hp and torque equating to an
additional 138 pounds of lift, according to the company. Essentially,
the engine is optimized for the narrow power band necessary for the
helicopter application. Fetters believes that for $950, this is an
inexpensive option that overcomes the need for a more powerful engine,
which would be much more expensive.

Flight Evaluation....
I don't take flights in single-place helicopters lightly, and I've
waited patiently for years for the fleet hours to accumulate
demonstrating the inherent safety of the series (about 28,000 hours to
date, according to Fetters). It was only after a detailed flight
briefing and an impressive demonstration flight by Ricardo Aita, a
company pilot, that I was prepared to place air under the skids. It
turned out I was overly cautious-if that's possible.
Fetters showed me the preferred method for entering the cockpit, and I
found the seat firm but comfortable (firm is best for a number of safety
reasons). The controls came readily to hand for this paunchy pilot of
200 pounds and average height. The control checks with friction off
showed there was no binding or significant friction in the system, and
the friction was then cranked on to meet the company wishes.
I confirmed that the fuel valve was on, skipped the prime with the warm
engine, closed the throttle, neutralized the controls and turned the
master switch on. With the-seatbelt secured, I couldn't reach the
ignition switch, so I had selected both in advance and used the cyclic
mounted starter button to bring the Mini to life. It started easily, and
I idled a short time until the Rotax 582's coolant reached the bottom of
the green. Raising the collective at idle produced a low rotor rpm
warning, the magneto check proved both ignition systems were operating
correctly, and the throttle chop at operating rpm provided a needle
split between the rotor and engine confirming the one-way driven clutch
was operative.
At this point, I wanted to eliminate all friction in the control but
was advised by the company pilot that it was preferable to leave
considerable resistance in the controls. Later I learned that this was
to reduce some of the vibration and stick shake. Although many pilots
prefer to have considerable resistance in the system to minimize pilot
overcontrolling, I prefer no stick trim or friction. I found that the
collective requires some friction in the system or it will rise on its
own during flight-not unusual in some helicopters. Moreover, if a pilot
leaves the cockpit with the engine running, the helicopter could lift
off if the collective is not locked down with a mechanical device or
adequate friction.

Getting Acquainted....
Initially, I had some difficulty mentally adapting to the pedals, which
are shaped like foot rests and move in a slightly different axis
compared to standard pedals. However, after 15 minutes or so of
hovering, I found my body and brain had made the conversion quite
readily. I also found the throttle system friction quite high, and this
resulted in my chasing the engine/rotor rpm somewhat at first-especially
since the correlation system doesn't do it all automatically for the
pilot. However, owners can remove the engine access cover and readily
adjust the throttle friction from no resistance to absolutely locked.
The skill of keeping the rotor rpm at the top of the green can be quite
a challenge for pilots like me who normally fly automatically governed
turbine equipment. My natural fumbling at rotor speed control coupled
with my intentional effort to establish the outside parameters allowed
me to get a really good feeling for the Mini's rotor inertia. It also
allowed me a glimpse into the scenarios that low-time pilots might
encounter and that could lead to the low-rotor-rpm accidents that occur
all too often.
Once I got a handle on the power lever, it was obvious the Mini was a
delight to hover and play with in the ground cushion. It was virtually
free of any noticeable vibration at the recommended rotor speed of
104%-positive proof that the Revolution fixes really work in the hover.
As the rotor speed falls below 96%, some minor vibration creeps in.
However, this is below the normal range and of no real significance
during typical operations.
With the doors off, visibility was excellent in most directions with
minor visual barriers straight down due to the floor and to the sides
due to the doorframes. Nothing unusual there. The Mini had 9 gallons of
fuel on board during the initial takeoff, and the nearly sea level OAT
was 75°F.
Fetters says that most problems on this engine are related to poor fuel
or jetting problems, and after taking a Rotax maintenance course, I know
this to be true in general on two-strokes. As I personally added
high-quality, filtered gas for our operations, I was comfortable with
the anticipated engine reliability and experimented with a broad
spectrum of operating rpms and altitudes. Although the rotor speed's
normal operating range is 96-104%, I conducted operations beyond these
limits and found no unacceptable characteristics.
The combination of relatively high rotor inertia and a sensitive
throttle system results in pilots new to the type chasing the rotor rpm,
but prolonged hovering operations can teach them effective rotor speed
control. While operation in the low yellow rotor rpm band is not
recommended, I found the helicopter had adequate power to recover from
90% or slightly less rotor rpm by milking the collective downward
slightly while fully opening the throttle.
Under the ambient conditions, full throttle produced the following
maximum hover height/rpm combinations: 6 foot hover attainable at 100%,
10 feet at 102% and 15+ feet at 104%. The recommended takeoff power is
104%, so the PEP would obviously produce more than sufficient power for
hovering with the skids approximately 2 feet off the ground at
considerably higher altitudes and/or with much heavier pilots. Unless
you are operating well above 5000-foot density altitude, it would appear
that this engine with the optional PEP is adequate in terms of power
output (assuming that the engine is kept well tuned, with the correct
jets for the ambient con¬ditions, and approved, fresh fuel).

Control Authority....
During a lengthy period of hovering that resulted in improved rotor
speed control as the Mini and I became acquainted, I was able to conduct
numerous hovering autorotations, and I found the Mini had plenty of
rotor inertia to permit gentle touchdowns - even with a slightly drooped
rotor rpm. Over two days, with varying winds, I confirmed that the 20
mph sideways and rearward maximum recommended flight speeds were
conservative and safely flown with no tendency to exceed or even
challenge the tail rotor's capability. There was plenty of control
authority during all maneuvers, and the tail rotor seemed to have as
much power as would ever be necessary at this density altitude. (No
high-altitude testing was conducted during these profiles.) This Hughes
500 lookalike also transitions through translational lift quite
smoothly, and I noted a distinct absence of measurable vibration under
all flight conditions up to 30 mph indicated.
Circuit restrictions, gusty winds and smoke from a forest fire shut
down operations on my second day of flying, so I was unable to conduct a
lot of straight and level flying at normal cruising speeds. Fetters
wasn't keen on my flying in those conditions at all, but my schedule
wouldn't permit a later flight, so I was committed to flying when many
of the other gyroplanes and helicopters chose to sit it out.
Nonetheless, the helicopter flew smoothly up to the maximum speed of 75
mph - an air-traffic induced limit. I wasn't overly comfortable flying
this lightweight under such conditions, but the company pilot who had 60
hours on type subsequently flew the demo in an aggressive and accurate
demonstration program with absolutely no difficulty.
The Mini is not only responsive but also surprisingly stable in
hovering operations, handling like a much larger helicopter. After only
20 minutes in type it was fairly easy to knock over the orange cone
markers with a skid and then stand them up again. This can be
challenging with any helicopter, and it was surprising to be able to
accomplish this intricate task with so little time in type.

Cautious Considerations....
The pilot's operating handbook cautions pilots to apply aft cyclic
while the collective is being lowered after high-speed engine failures
to minimize the helicopter's tendency to nose over. It also advises
avoiding low G maneuvers to avoid chopping off the tail boom. These are
standard cautions with any helicopter. Also, there is a large area of
the height-velocity envelope to be avoided during low-speed and high
hovering operations. I conducted autorotations while within the edges of
the avoid area, and the chart is conservative. However, this is another
way a company can build in additional safety margins for pilots.
The major limitation of the helicopter is that it is hoisted aloft by a
two-stroke engine. Two-strokes can be reasonably reliable if owners
perform the suggested maintenance schedule recommended by Rotax, but
these powerplants do require a lot of fiddling with jetting anytime a
significant temperature or operating altitude is encountered to meet the
carb/mixture/EGT requirements and limitations. Pilot/owners should
follow the recommended procedures to keep their engines in optimum
health. They should also ensure that their autorotational skills are honed.
Now that I have logged a few flights on the updated version of the
Mini-500 series, it's difficult to understand the tempest that has
ensued between the company and a few owners - unless one considers the
personalities involved. The 500 not only looks great, it flies well and
appears to be free of significant vices.
Helicopters are not toys, and they are not easy for low-time pilots to
fly well. But they offer an excellent challenge for pilots who wish to
rise above common pilot skills - vertically. The Mini, especially with
PEP, boasts heaps of power for hot-and-heavy conditions and a blistering
cruising speed for a low-cost helicopter. All this and measly operating
expense, too.
Revolution's current offerings have solved the initial problems common
with the introduction of a new type, and the company is well positioned
to increase customer service and success in the market.

I've never read a negative artical by Ken Armstrong in COPA or
kitplanes. I've never read a negative aircraft review in Kitplanes by
any author. Why would the mini 500 be any different?

>My answer to this post, and below is the last article printed by
>KitPlanes Magazine in November 1999 of the flight report wrote by Kin
>Armstrong. So if you have already made a negative opinion on the
>Mini-500 saga and don't what your opinion to be confused by the facts,
>then don't read!!!
>
>
>anon wrote:
>> Dennis,
>>
>> I see you are back with your same old talking points.
>
>
>There's nothing like the facts to counter unfounded and false
>statements. My talking points stay the same, because they are the true
>facts. I, unlike people like you, don't have the luxury of changing or
>making up stories, or making up or passing on unfounded or untrue
>statements. So yes, you will read what I have to say over and over
>again, because those are the facts, much to your apparent dissatisfaction.
>
>
>> As has been explained, a finding of pilot error does not in any way provide
>> an endorsement of your design.
>
>
>You know, there are people out there that even dispute the fact that
>America landed a man on the moon. It just does not matter how much
>evidence you put before them, or who provides the evidence, they choose
>not to believe it because that is what they want to disbelieve. I give
>you Federal accident reports followed up with further company reports,
>and still you choose to disbelieve, because that is contrary to what you
>want to believe. Even a horse is smart enough to drink water when you
>lead him to it enough times, but you will never believe because that is
>not what you want to believe, despite the proof or who prints it.
>
>
>> When your design failed, many pilots found
>> themselves unable to recover in a manner expected from certified aircraft.
>> That is the standard. It does not address the design failures that
>> preceded the pilot errors. It does not address the design's ability to
>> recover from those failures.
>
>
>Wrong. Many Mini-500 owners say absolutely the opposite. In fact,
>attached is a report by the professional test pilot Ken Armstrong,
>giving the Mini-500 a brilliant review. The Mini-500 he flew the same
>bird that flew from Kansas City to Oshkosh, the same bird that flew at
>all the air shows. That Mini-500 was 100% stock all the way, built to
>factory specs with all factory mods.
>
>
>> You like to blame the dead, especially low-time dead pilots. You might
>> have forgotten that you marketed your kit to low-time pilots.
>
>
>I only tell the facts. I don't even want to talk about it, let alone
>blame live or dead people. But you really haven't given be any
>alternatives. You put me on the spot, you blame be for killing people
>with a bad design, you continually place me in a position demanding
>answers, and I can only answer with the facts. If I said it was not
>their fault, then I would be lying.
>
>
>> Let's look at the chronology again.
>> 1) Everybody gets excited when they see the Cicare CH-6 prototype fly.
>> 2) You and Cicare dissolve your partnership and you are left without a
>> helicopter to sell.
>> 3) Without access to Cicare's design or the CH-6 demonstration aircraft, you
>> attempt to copy the design.
>> 4) While you are still designing your new helicopter, you continue to market
>> and take orders for an unproven design
>> 5) You delivered kits without adequate testing, claiming TBO's of up to 2000
>> hours, when your prototype only had a a couple of hundred hours, at most.
>> 6) You marketed your kits to low-time pilots
>> A classic bait and switch.
>
>
>You must write fictional books for living!! You have taken history and
>twisted it around to your satisfaction.
>
>I'll tell you what, I'll let Ken Armstrong's article in KitPlanes
>Magazine do the speaking for awhile. Ken has over 9000 hours flying 40
>different types of helicopters. He was a Military helicopter test pilot,
>and currently instructs in helicopters.
>
>BUT EVEN WITH A MAN WITH SUCH IMPECCABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND UNTARNISHED
>REPUTATION, someone here will find something to discredit him and his
>report on the Mini-500. The truth is written below, and yet some of you
>will refuse to believe, simply because it is contrary to what you want
>to believe.
>
>After all, you read all the bad stuff about the Mini-500 right here on
>this newsgroup by credible people, that you have never met or can even
>see and some that don't have names... so it must have been true, right????
>
>
>********Mini Revolution********
>
>Where is Revolution Helicopter’s Mini-500 series heading?
>
>By Ken Armstrong
>KitPlanes Magazine
>November 1999 Issue
>
> The Revolution Mini 500 possesses an enviable sales record because of
>the strong demand for low-cost, kit-built helicopters. However,
>marketing success has created problems for the company and its owners.
>Revolution has difficulty keeping up with customer expectations, and
>some builders unrealistically expect the helicopter to be snag-¬free
>during ownership.
> In reality, the Mini 500 is no different from any homebuilt helicopter
>- or from any commercial helicopter ever produced. They have all
>experienced technical/design problems that required modification, and as
>a professional helicopter pilot since 1972, I was often the guinea pig
>who found out what those problems were. No helicopter design is perfect,
>and there is no fling-wing flying that does not have ongoing problems.
> What can you do if you own a Mini 500 or plan to buy one? Approach
>ownership with an open mind and anticipate some down time while you
>install modifications that Revolution considers mandatory for the safe
>operation of the helicopter. If you plan to buy a used Mini 500, ensure
>all of the mandatory modifications have been completed.
>
>Is the Mini 500 Safe?.....
> Any helicopter is only as safe as the pilot in command. There have been
>a number of Mini 500 crashes, a number of them resulting in fatalities,
>and there is a common thread among them. Accident data from Revolution
>and the NTSB, combined with witness reports, indicate there have been
>few if any mechanical failures that were not caused by improper
>maintenance. In fact, 100% of the crashes had a pilot error component,
>with 43% sharing maintenance/pilot error causal factors. Nearly 75% of
>the pilots involved in accidents had less than 100 hours rotary wing
>experience, and some didn't even have a helicopter rating (more on this
>subject in the flight evaluation). Failure to maintain adequate rotor
>rpm was a contributing factor in almost half of the accidents. Another
>factor was pilots flying with the wrong carburetor jets for the ambient
>conditions - an important consideration when operating these
>hard-working engines. Operating with a two-stroke engine entails a
>higher risk of engine failure than a four-stroke powerplant would, and
>pilots must always be prepared to carry out an autorotation.
> Another primary factor in the high accident rate for the Mini 500 (44
>accidents out of only a few hundred flying) is that there are many being
>flown by pilots with relatively little rotary experience, and in a few
>of the accidents the pilots weren't even licensed. In the case of an
>engine out, proper training and experience is critical.
> But other than the higher incidence of engine failures associated with
>two-stroke operation and pilot deficiencies, I don't see any particular
>safety risk associated with this helicopter, and I wouldn't hesitate to
>fly Mini 500s because the autorotative characteristics are quite
>reasonable in the event the Rotax takes a time out.
>
>Who Needs Politics?....
> I believe the greatest non-technical problem plaguing the Mini 500 is
>the polarization between Revolution and a small number of vocal,
>dissatisfied owners. Revolution President Dennis Fetters is blessed and
>cursed with a strong personality that has bolstered him with the drive
>to create the successful Air Command gyro series and now the affordable
>Mini helicopter series. But success often breeds problems, and keeping
>up with the calls for technical revisions while attempting to provide
>really good customer support has been a challenge at Revolution. As a
>result, some of the owners have formed the support group known as the
>International Helicopter Builders Association Inc. (IHBAI).
> Mentioning this group to Fetters is like waving a red flag at a bull.
>He feels the organization is trying to undermine his efforts and has
>been dishonest about its aims. The group says it simply wants to find
>fixes for Mini 500 problems typically agreed to as excessive vibration
>creating frame cracks and transmission gears manufactured by a third
>party that were not of sufficient hardness. For more details on these
>topics, see the May 1999 KITPLANES©.
> Having mentioned this builders group, I should add that I met many Mini
>500 owners at Sun'n Fun who have experienced no problems with their
>helicopters and are having a blast with them. Responses to company
>questionnaires indicate that more than 90% of the attendees at company
>training programs are completely satisfied with Revolution's efforts. In
>the Internet era, it's all too easy for a few unhappy owners to promote
>their discontent.
>
>Builders Support Group....
> At the 1999 Sun'n Fun meeting, IHBAI members, under President Bill
>Phillips, decided they would not hire an engineering team to modify or
>fix the Mini 500's problems because they felt Revolution was adequately
>tackling the situation. The 14 attendees almost unanimously expressed a
>desire to work with the company on problems and fixes. However, Fetters
>wanted no association with this group. For the most part, I found these
>owners to be levelheaded and simply wanting a solution to their problems
>at a reasonable price so they could continue flying.
> Stan Robinson, president of U.S. AirPower, talked about the possibility
>of installing the three-cylinder, liquid cooled two-stroke engine
>currently undergoing flight test in the Revolution two-place Voyager,
>but this is unlikely in the near term, especially without Fetters' blessing.
>
>Solutions Are at Hand....
> Fetters has always maintained that the company manufactures
>modifications quickly and prices them realistically to support his
>clients. After many hours of discussion with him, I can appreciate his
>point of view and feel the company is striving assiduously to correct
>deficiencies and expand the performance and safety envelope.
> Solving vibration problems has been a long slow process not because
>Revolution wasn't devoting a lot of time to the solution, but because
>rotor system dynamics are complex. The late model Talon (the model name
>for the improved Mini 500) I flew for this report had the latest
>refinements including mast support with rubber isolation, friction
>damper on the cyclic system and trimtabs on the rotor system. These
>refinements have apparently reduced the overall vibration level from 10
>IPS to 0.01 in hover and 0.1 at 95 mph. Revolution asserts that all of
>these modifications are recommended because they work together to
>significantly reduce vibration. Minimizing the shaking reduces wear and
>tear, extends component life and provides greater system reliability.
>All new kits include all of the mast support refinements.
> An Engine Information System (EIS) is a new option that constantly
>monitors cooling, fuel mixture, lubrication and power output for
>enhanced reliability. Although I have not evaluated this $675 package,
>it comes complete with all probes, wiring and displays to provide a
>visual warning in the form in a red light when an engine parameter has
>been exceeded. It’s like buying insurance.
>
>Power Enhancement Package....
> The factory demonstrator I flew at Sun 'n Fun, 500FD, had the optional
>power enhancement package (PEP) installed. The company recommends that
>every Mini 500 owner install this system to improve recovery from low
>rotor rpm. Faustino Padilla, a 240-pound Guatemalan pilot/owner who
>flies his Mini 500 from a base 5000 feet above sea level at very high
>temperatures, claims the PEP makes a world of difference to performance.
>The PEP system comprises a tuned exhaust system and special carburetion
>settings that provide an additional 18% hp and torque equating to an
>additional 138 pounds of lift, according to the company. Essentially,
>the engine is optimized for the narrow power band necessary for the
>helicopter application. Fetters believes that for $950, this is an
>inexpensive option that overcomes the need for a more powerful engine,
>which would be much more expensive.
>
>Flight Evaluation....
> I don't take flights in single-place helicopters lightly, and I've
>waited patiently for years for the fleet hours to accumulate
>demonstrating the inherent safety of the series (about 28,000 hours to
>date, according to Fetters). It was only after a detailed flight
>briefing and an impressive demonstration flight by Ricardo Aita, a
>company pilot, that I was prepared to place air under the skids. It
>turned out I was overly cautious-if that's possible.
> Fetters showed me the preferred method for entering the cockpit, and I
>found the seat firm but comfortable (firm is best for a number of safety
>reasons). The controls came readily to hand for this paunchy pilot of
>200 pounds and average height. The control checks with friction off
>showed there was no binding or significant friction in the system, and
>the friction was then cranked on to meet the company wishes.
> I confirmed that the fuel valve was on, skipped the prime with the warm
>engine, closed the throttle, neutralized the controls and turned the
>master switch on. With the-seatbelt secured, I couldn't reach the
>ignition switch, so I had selected both in advance and used the cyclic
>mounted starter button to bring the Mini to life. It started easily, and
>I idled a short time until the Rotax 582's coolant reached the bottom of
>the green. Raising the collective at idle produced a low rotor rpm
>warning, the magneto check proved both ignition systems were operating
>correctly, and the throttle chop at operating rpm provided a needle
>split between the rotor and engine confirming the one-way driven clutch
>was operative.
> At this point, I wanted to eliminate all friction in the control but
>was advised by the company pilot that it was preferable to leave
>considerable resistance in the controls. Later I learned that this was
>to reduce some of the vibration and stick shake. Although many pilots
>prefer to have considerable resistance in the system to minimize pilot
>overcontrolling, I prefer no stick trim or friction. I found that the
>collective requires some friction in the system or it will rise on its
>own during flight-not unusual in some helicopters. Moreover, if a pilot
>leaves the cockpit with the engine running, the helicopter could lift
>off if the collective is not locked down with a mechanical device or
>adequate friction.
>
>Getting Acquainted....
> Initially, I had some difficulty mentally adapting to the pedals, which
>are shaped like foot rests and move in a slightly different axis
>compared to standard pedals. However, after 15 minutes or so of
>hovering, I found my body and brain had made the conversion quite
>readily. I also found the throttle system friction quite high, and this
>resulted in my chasing the engine/rotor rpm somewhat at first-especially
>since the correlation system doesn't do it all automatically for the
>pilot. However, owners can remove the engine access cover and readily
>adjust the throttle friction from no resistance to absolutely locked.
> The skill of keeping the rotor rpm at the top of the green can be quite
>a challenge for pilots like me who normally fly automatically governed
>turbine equipment. My natural fumbling at rotor speed control coupled
>with my intentional effort to establish the outside parameters allowed
>me to get a really good feeling for the Mini's rotor inertia. It also
>allowed me a glimpse into the scenarios that low-time pilots might
>encounter and that could lead to the low-rotor-rpm accidents that occur
>all too often.
> Once I got a handle on the power lever, it was obvious the Mini was a
>delight to hover and play with in the ground cushion. It was virtually
>free of any noticeable vibration at the recommended rotor speed of
>104%-positive proof that the Revolution fixes really work in the hover.
>As the rotor speed falls below 96%, some minor vibration creeps in.
>However, this is below the normal range and of no real significance
>during typical operations.
> With the doors off, visibility was excellent in most directions with
>minor visual barriers straight down due to the floor and to the sides
>due to the doorframes. Nothing unusual there. The Mini had 9 gallons of
>fuel on board during the initial takeoff, and the nearly sea level OAT
>was 75°F.
> Fetters says that most problems on this engine are related to poor fuel
>or jetting problems, and after taking a Rotax maintenance course, I know
>this to be true in general on two-strokes. As I personally added
>high-quality, filtered gas for our operations, I was comfortable with
>the anticipated engine reliability and experimented with a broad
>spectrum of operating rpms and altitudes. Although the rotor speed's
>normal operating range is 96-104%, I conducted operations beyond these
>limits and found no unacceptable characteristics.
> The combination of relatively high rotor inertia and a sensitive
>throttle system results in pilots new to the type chasing the rotor rpm,
>but prolonged hovering operations can teach them effective rotor speed
>control. While operation in the low yellow rotor rpm band is not
>recommended, I found the helicopter had adequate power to recover from
>90% or slightly less rotor rpm by milking the collective downward
>slightly while fully opening the throttle.
> Under the ambient conditions, full throttle produced the following
>maximum hover height/rpm combinations: 6 foot hover attainable at 100%,
>10 feet at 102% and 15+ feet at 104%. The recommended takeoff power is
>104%, so the PEP would obviously produce more than sufficient power for
>hovering with the skids approximately 2 feet off the ground at
>considerably higher altitudes and/or with much heavier pilots. Unless
>you are operating well above 5000-foot density altitude, it would appear
>that this engine with the optional PEP is adequate in terms of power
>output (assuming that the engine is kept well tuned, with the correct
>jets for the ambient con¬ditions, and approved, fresh fuel).
>
>Control Authority....
> During a lengthy period of hovering that resulted in improved rotor
>speed control as the Mini and I became acquainted, I was able to conduct
>numerous hovering autorotations, and I found the Mini had plenty of
>rotor inertia to permit gentle touchdowns - even with a slightly drooped
>rotor rpm. Over two days, with varying winds, I confirmed that the 20
>mph sideways and rearward maximum recommended flight speeds were
>conservative and safely flown with no tendency to exceed or even
>challenge the tail rotor's capability. There was plenty of control
>authority during all maneuvers, and the tail rotor seemed to have as
>much power as would ever be necessary at this density altitude. (No
>high-altitude testing was conducted during these profiles.) This Hughes
>500 lookalike also transitions through translational lift quite
>smoothly, and I noted a distinct absence of measurable vibration under
>all flight conditions up to 30 mph indicated.
> Circuit restrictions, gusty winds and smoke from a forest fire shut
>down operations on my second day of flying, so I was unable to conduct a
>lot of straight and level flying at normal cruising speeds. Fetters
>wasn't keen on my flying in those conditions at all, but my schedule
>wouldn't permit a later flight, so I was committed to flying when many
>of the other gyroplanes and helicopters chose to sit it out.
>Nonetheless, the helicopter flew smoothly up to the maximum speed of 75
>mph - an air-traffic induced limit. I wasn't overly comfortable flying
>this lightweight under such conditions, but the company pilot who had 60
>hours on type subsequently flew the demo in an aggressive and accurate
>demonstration program with absolutely no difficulty.
> The Mini is not only responsive but also surprisingly stable in
>hovering operations, handling like a much larger helicopter. After only
>20 minutes in type it was fairly easy to knock over the orange cone
>markers with a skid and then stand them up again. This can be
>challenging with any helicopter, and it was surprising to be able to
>accomplish this intricate task with so little time in type.
>
>Cautious Considerations....
> The pilot's operating handbook cautions pilots to apply aft cyclic
>while the collective is being lowered after high-speed engine failures
>to minimize the helicopter's tendency to nose over. It also advises
>avoiding low G maneuvers to avoid chopping off the tail boom. These are
>standard cautions with any helicopter. Also, there is a large area of
>the height-velocity envelope to be avoided during low-speed and high
>hovering operations. I conducted autorotations while within the edges of
>the avoid area, and the chart is conservative. However, this is another
>way a company can build in additional safety margins for pilots.
> The major limitation of the helicopter is that it is hoisted aloft by a
>two-stroke engine. Two-strokes can be reasonably reliable if owners
>perform the suggested maintenance schedule recommended by Rotax, but
>these powerplants do require a lot of fiddling with jetting anytime a
>significant temperature or operating altitude is encountered to meet the
>carb/mixture/EGT requirements and limitations. Pilot/owners should
>follow the recommended procedures to keep their engines in optimum
>health. They should also ensure that their autorotational skills are honed.
> Now that I have logged a few flights on the updated version of the
>Mini-500 series, it's difficult to understand the tempest that has
>ensued between the company and a few owners - unless one considers the
>personalities involved. The 500 not only looks great, it flies well and
>appears to be free of significant vices.
> Helicopters are not toys, and they are not easy for low-time pilots to
>fly well. But they offer an excellent challenge for pilots who wish to
>rise above common pilot skills - vertically. The Mini, especially with
>PEP, boasts heaps of power for hot-and-heavy conditions and a blistering
>cruising speed for a low-cost helicopter. All this and measly operating
>expense, too.
> Revolution's current offerings have solved the initial problems common
>with the introduction of a new type, and the company is well positioned
>to increase customer service and success in the market.
>
>

BUT...are we talking about the highly trained frequent flying helo
pilot or the weekend hobby pilot who tends to be out of practice and
less tuned into his aircraft? Is the market for these aircraft really
the highly trained pilots or the wannabe's?

Richard Riley wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2007 19:26:04 -0800, "BobR" > wrote:
>
> >Assuming that you make the RIGHT decisioin and don't hesitate or thing
> >about it.
>
> Well, of course! I mean, a highly trained helo pilot wouldn't ever do
> anything but! A third of a second is PLENTY to understand what's
> going on and begin corrective action!

BobR wrote:
> BUT...are we talking about the highly trained frequent flying helo
> pilot or the weekend hobby pilot who tends to be out of practice and
> less tuned into his aircraft? Is the market for these aircraft really
> the highly trained pilots or the wannabe's?
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2007 19:26:04 -0800, "BobR" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming that you make the RIGHT decisioin and don't hesitate or
>>> thing about it.
>>
>> Well, of course! I mean, a highly trained helo pilot wouldn't ever
>> do anything but! A third of a second is PLENTY to understand what's
>> going on and begin corrective action!


When I was getting my PP-R H rating I had an engine failure in an R-22 while
solo. I was in the pattern so locating a landing spot wasn't an issue. Also,
I had been practicing Autos to hover that morning with and instructor.

That said, there was plenty of time to slam the collective down when the
engine failed.

That is the real reason helicopters are so loud. They make them that way so
it really gets your attention when they stop being loud.

What it comes down to is a second is really a pretty long time. Two seconds
is twice as long. back in the 90's I shot pistols in competition. IPSC to be
exact. One of the standard exercises was called El Presidente. 3 targets at
30 feet. The drill was to draw, fire two rounds on each target, reload and
fire two on each target. The going time was around 6 seconds for the drill.
The really fast guys were getting close to 5 and may well have beat 5 by
now.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> I've never read a negative artical by Ken Armstrong in COPA or
> kitplanes. I've never read a negative aircraft review in Kitplanes by
> any author. Why would the mini 500 be any different?


>>BUT EVEN WITH A MAN WITH SUCH IMPECCABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND UNTARNISHED
>>REPUTATION, someone here will find something to discredit him and his
>>report on the Mini-500. The truth is written below, and yet some of you
>>will refuse to believe, simply because it is contrary to what you want
>>to believe.


There ya go........ I knew there would be someone insult the man!!

As Mr. Armstrong told me, he don't test fly the ones that don't look
safe. Besides, how many kitbuilts were out there at the time?...... five
or so?? I guess he could only write so many flight reviews per kit, with
the very limited numbers to write about. But again, it don't matter if
Chuck Yeager wrote a good report about the Mini-500, some of you have
your minds made up and don't want to confuse the issues with the facts.

Dennis,

I used to read Kitplanes but quit when it became obvious it wasn't much
more than a mouthpiece for its advertisers. Much like Zoom's garbage.

What Drew wrote was simply the FACTS... not opinion, facts.

Two sentences of fact and one sentence with a question. You don't like
reading them... that I can understand given your own interest in the
Mini-500.

John

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Drew Dalgleish wrote:
>
>> I've never read a negative artical by Ken Armstrong in COPA or
>> kitplanes. I've never read a negative aircraft review in Kitplanes by
>> any author. Why would the mini 500 be any different?
>
>
>
>>> BUT EVEN WITH A MAN WITH SUCH IMPECCABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND
>>> UNTARNISHED REPUTATION, someone here will find something to discredit
>>> him and his report on the Mini-500. The truth is written below, and
>>> yet some of you will refuse to believe, simply because it is contrary
>>> to what you want to believe.
>
>
>
> There ya go........ I knew there would be someone insult the man!!
>
> As Mr. Armstrong told me, he don't test fly the ones that don't look
> safe. Besides, how many kitbuilts were out there at the time?...... five
> or so?? I guess he could only write so many flight reviews per kit, with
> the very limited numbers to write about. But again, it don't matter if
> Chuck Yeager wrote a good report about the Mini-500, some of you have
> your minds made up and don't want to confuse the issues with the facts.

Wow, been years since I looked in on RAH and Fetters is STILL denying any
responsibility!

Bruce A. Frank

"BRUCE FRANK" > wrote in message
...
> Wow, been years since I looked in on RAH and Fetters is STILL denying any
> responsibility!

Welcome back, Frank!

He hasn't been back often, or lately. It happened this time, after someone
mentioned the 500, as a possible purchase. I think he must monitor the
group, or be on it under and alias on a regular basis, to be that quick
about a reply.

Some of the old regulars are not around much, anymore. There still is a
little bit of good dialogue going on, sometimes.

But, like you say, the more things change, the more they stay the same! <G>
--
Jim in NC

"Richard Riley" > wrote
>
> Good to see you! Pull up a chair, have some muzzleloader!
>
> Look up the headers a ways, Juan is telling us what a wonderful
> airplane the BD5 is.

Yep, both names from past days that don't appear much anymore, and really, I
can't say that I have missed them much.
--
Jim in NC

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:36:00 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to is a second is really a pretty long time. Two
>> seconds is twice as long. back in the 90's I shot pistols in
>> competition. IPSC to be exact. One of the standard exercises was
>> called El Presidente. 3 targets at 30 feet. The drill was to draw,
>> fire two rounds on each target, reload and fire two on each target.
>> The going time was around 6 seconds for the drill. The really fast
>> guys were getting close to 5 and may well have beat 5 by now.
>
> Whatta ya know! I shot with the SWPL back in the 70's. Armond
> Swenson was my Godfather (literally, my dad worked with him at a yacht
> company when I was born) and I still have the 1911 he built for me.
>
> 5 seconds has been beat. By a bunch
>
> http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=811

Mecalek 9 (I know I spelled that wrong) lived not far from me and he is fast
but when he was really going for speed he wasn't as accurate as he was in
normal competition. What was funny was he would load faster some times on
the "load & make ready" command than he did during the run.

The 5 seconds had been beat when I was shooting and I even got close once
but is wasn't all "A's" and it wasn't during a match. I am curious what the
best score in the USPSA classifier database is now.

How about 'ole BOb?

I keep in touch with some of the old gang via direct email under my phone book
folder named "Tony's Old Gang." (BTW, was cleaning out some old files from my
computer the other day and ran across a picture of Tony...still miss the guy)

Don't hear anything from Badwater Bill any more. Did have a conversation on the
Bearhawk yahoo group the other day about Bill running Paul Lamar off RAH.

Hope to make it to Sun'N Fun this year after missing it for three in a row.

Morgans wrote:

> "Richard Riley" > wrote
> >
> > Good to see you! Pull up a chair, have some muzzleloader!
> >
> > Look up the headers a ways, Juan is telling us what a wonderful
> > airplane the BD5 is.
>
> Yep, both names from past days that don't appear much anymore, and really, I
> can't say that I have missed them much.
> --
> Jim in NC

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

In article >, Bruce A. Frank says...
>
>How about 'ole BOb?
>
>I keep in touch with some of the old gang via direct email under my phone book
>folder named "Tony's Old Gang." (BTW, was cleaning out some old files from my
>computer the other day and ran across a picture of Tony...still miss the guy)

Yeah me too,I think of him alot when ever jaun starts spouting off .I guess Tony
had a phone conversation with jaun before he died and Tony said jaun might be a
nice guy in person but he's got this thing about being somebody else on the net.
I still have Tony's phone # and e mail address in my book I just can't seem to
be able to delete it yet.He was a good and true friend.


>Don't hear anything from Badwater Bill any more. Did have a conversation on the
>Bearhawk yahoo group the other day about Bill running Paul Lamar off RAH.


As far as I'm concerned BWB is persona non grata ever since he went over to the
dark side with zoom. He used to be a fun guy until then .Now I don't care if I
ever see or talk to him again. I'm sure he gives a sh#t what I think so what
else is new :-)

>
>Hope to make it to Sun'N Fun this year after missing it for three in a row.

If you do be sure to stop by the booth and say Hi .Lots of RAH guys do.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

>
> If you do be sure to stop by the booth and say Hi .Lots of RAH guys do.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

Well, if you HAVE a booth at Osh this year, I'll bring by a couple of
bottles of Gunship 2.

See, everyone thought Gunship 1 just didn't have enough kick to it,
'cause it was only 110 proof or so. The New and Improved Gunship 2 is
about 185.

We will need no smoking signs....

RR

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote

> How about 'ole BOb?

He drops in every month or two, usually to heckle me about a thing or three,
or an overly ambitious auto engine proponent, then he's gone again.

Speaking of auto engines, how is your project going?

Badwater stops in even less frequently, but lately in the incarnation of
Jacqueline somethin-or-an-other.

I sometimes get the feeling that he is here in the name of other mysterious
people occasionally, too. Sure nothing like he used to do, though.
--
Jim in NC

My project sits as I re-roof the patio and spend $500 on outdoor grade
electrical parts to wire the lights and receptacles under it to code.

My son starts college next fall, planning to major in Mech. E. He wants to get a
"real" job this summer. I am trying to talk him into helping me finish the
project this summer for pay of $1000 a month (40 hrs a week). I keep point out
to him that there is no job that he can work this summer that will give him as
much experience and practical mechanical understanding as helping me finish the
plane. My fingers are crossed for good luck that he'll agree.

Morgans wrote:

> "Bruce A. Frank" > wrote
>
> > How about 'ole BOb?
>
> He drops in every month or two, usually to heckle me about a thing or three,
> or an overly ambitious auto engine proponent, then he's gone again.
>
> Speaking of auto engines, how is your project going?
>
> Badwater stops in even less frequently, but lately in the incarnation of
> Jacqueline somethin-or-an-other.
>
> I sometimes get the feeling that he is here in the name of other mysterious
> people occasionally, too. Sure nothing like he used to do, though.
> --
> Jim in NC

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

Bruce,

You don't actually expect him to work for that $1000 per month do
you...bet he doesn't.

Got to love them though...its part of the contract.

Bob

Bruce A. Frank wrote:
> My project sits as I re-roof the patio and spend $500 on outdoor grade
> electrical parts to wire the lights and receptacles under it to code.
>
> My son starts college next fall, planning to major in Mech. E. He wants to get a
> "real" job this summer. I am trying to talk him into helping me finish the
> project this summer for pay of $1000 a month (40 hrs a week). I keep point out
> to him that there is no job that he can work this summer that will give him as
> much experience and practical mechanical understanding as helping me finish the
> plane. My fingers are crossed for good luck that he'll agree.
>
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > "Bruce A. Frank" > wrote
> >
> > > How about 'ole BOb?
> >
> > He drops in every month or two, usually to heckle me about a thing or three,
> > or an overly ambitious auto engine proponent, then he's gone again.
> >
> > Speaking of auto engines, how is your project going?
> >
> > Badwater stops in even less frequently, but lately in the incarnation of
> > Jacqueline somethin-or-an-other.
> >
> > I sometimes get the feeling that he is here in the name of other mysterious
> > people occasionally, too. Sure nothing like he used to do, though.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> --
> Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
> Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
> | Publishing interesting material|
> | on all aspects of alternative |
> | engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
> *------------------------------**----*
> \(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
> \___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
> / \ for homebuilt aircraft,
> 0 0 TIG welding
>
> While trying to find the time to finish mine.

Richard Riley wrote:
> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
>> If you do be sure to stop by the booth and say Hi .Lots of RAH guys do.
>>
>> See ya
>>
>> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
> Well, if you HAVE a booth at Osh this year, I'll bring by a couple of
> bottles of Gunship 2.
>
> See, everyone thought Gunship 1 just didn't have enough kick to it,
> 'cause it was only 110 proof or so. The New and Improved Gunship 2 is
> about 185.
>
> We will need no smoking signs....
>
> RR
>
Good for removing ice :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> If you do be sure to stop by the booth and say Hi .Lots of RAH guys do.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

I recently heard that there is going to be a Hillsboro, OR air show this
year. Any chance you'll have a booth there?

Tony

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> My project sits as I re-roof the patio and spend $500 on outdoor grade
> electrical parts to wire the lights and receptacles under it to code.
>
> My son starts college next fall, planning to major in Mech. E. He wants to
> get a
> "real" job this summer. I am trying to talk him into helping me finish the
> project this summer for pay of $1000 a month (40 hrs a week). I keep point
> out
> to him that there is no job that he can work this summer that will give
> him as
> much experience and practical mechanical understanding as helping me
> finish the
> plane. My fingers are crossed for good luck that he'll agree.

I know what you are saying. I'm trying to finish my kitchen remodel; I have
to finish the raised panel doors, and some plaster work, then a few other
things. I wish you luck getting your son to help. Good help is hard to
find! <g>
--
Jim in NC

Bruce A. Frank wrote:
> My project sits as I re-roof the patio and spend $500 on outdoor grade
> electrical parts to wire the lights and receptacles under it to code.
>
> My son starts college next fall, planning to major in Mech. E. He wants to get a
> "real" job this summer. I am trying to talk him into helping me finish the
> project this summer for pay of $1000 a month (40 hrs a week). I keep point out
> to him that there is no job that he can work this summer that will give him as
> much experience and practical mechanical understanding as helping me finish the
> plane. My fingers are crossed for good luck that he'll agree.
>

Bruce,

Does the job include room and board too?

If the boy doesn't take it, I might!

Richard

....yeah, but bags don't fly!

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:06:52 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
> > wrote:
>
> >My project sits as I re-roof the patio and spend $500 on outdoor grade
> >electrical parts to wire the lights and receptacles under it to code.
> >
> >My son starts college next fall, planning to major in Mech. E. He wants to get a
> >"real" job this summer. I am trying to talk him into helping me finish the
> >project this summer for pay of $1000 a month (40 hrs a week). I keep point out
> >to him that there is no job that he can work this summer that will give him as
> >much experience and practical mechanical understanding as helping me finish the
> >plane. My fingers are crossed for good luck that he'll agree.
>
> Good luck. If that's "take home" pay it's only $6.75/hr gross. We
> have a supermarket down the street that's paying starting bag boys
> $9.50

("Bruce A. Frank" wrote)
>> My son starts college next fall, planning to major in Mech. E. He wants
>> to get a "real" job this summer. I am trying to talk him into helping me
>> finish the project this summer for pay of $1000 a month (40 hrs a week).
>> I keep point out to him that there is no job that he can work this summer
>> that will give him as much experience and practical mechanical
>> understanding as helping me finish the plane. My fingers are crossed for
>> good luck that he'll agree.


You get one shot at this, Pops - pony up! (...as if college costs are
something to sneeze at. <g>)

How about this:
You'll match him dollar for dollar on his "real" paycheck's net (up to 40
hours/week, and they both get deposited in a bank, etc, etc, etc.) ...if,
he'll give you 3 hours of 'top rate' shop time (per day) and 5 hours on the
weekend - all of it scheduled two weeks in advance.

He'll be getting your $1,000/month for half the time in the shop. I suspect
it'll be a much more productive 20 hrs. Under this plan he gets to watch his
savings grow (Hey, this is fun!) and he'll be able to take pride in his
"real" job, out in the real world.

Win, win, win ...plus it has double the chance of succeeding as your 1983
plan. :-)

Let us know how it works out.


Montblack
Don't forget my 4%.

Anthony W wrote:
>> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>>
>> If you do be sure to stop by the booth and say Hi .Lots of RAH guys do.
>>
>> See ya
>>
>> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
>
> I recently heard that there is going to be a Hillsboro, OR air show this
> year. Any chance you'll have a booth there?
>
> Tony

I live in Hillsboro and it is not the type of show Chuck would set up a
display. The KHIO show is not a pilots show it is for the masses. Most
of us pilots that have hangars and airplanes at Hillsboro hate the
airshow. The organizer view us as being in their way.

Jerry Springer wrote:

>> I recently heard that there is going to be a Hillsboro, OR air show
>> this year. Any chance you'll have a booth there?
>>
>> Tony
>
> I live in Hillsboro and it is not the type of show Chuck would set up a
> display. The KHIO show is not a pilots show it is for the masses. Most
> of us pilots that have hangars and airplanes at Hillsboro hate the
> airshow. The organizer view us as being in their way.

That's too bad. I haven't been to the Hillsboro air show in many years
and also years before I was at all serious about experimental aviation.
I was hoping for something better since there is no way I could swing
a trip to Oshkosh. It's a time/money problem, when I have the time I
don't have the money...

Tony

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah me too,I think of him alot when ever jaun starts spouting off .I
> guess Tony
> had a phone conversation with jaun before he died and Tony said jaun might
> be a
> nice guy in person but he's got this thing about being somebody else on
> the net.

You just can't help yourself, gotta make sure you dump some of your BS in
any thread you touch, dontcha? You want to get it forcefed to ya on this one
as well? Be happy to do so.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dennis: Ken's article referred to a vibration level in the Mini of 10 IPS
before the mast and other mods were made. Is this accurate? I've never
experienced more than 2.0 IPS in my Baby Belle and it got my immediate
attention. BTW my wife's comment that it had to have two seats stopped me
from buying a Mini. I've talked to a few Mini drivers who seem to be
satisfied with their ride. My experience with the magazine has indicated
there is a wide variety of helicopter owners and what they look for as good
in a ship. At a recent event I pointed out that per Prouty, that most of
the helicopters in attendance had tail rotors that rotated the wrong
direction. A number of the owners were more interested in a discussion of
upholstery fabrics than details of tail rotor direction.

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
et...
> My answer to this post, and below is the last article printed by
> KitPlanes Magazine in November 1999 of the flight report wrote by Kin
> Armstrong. So if you have already made a negative opinion on the
> Mini-500 saga and don't what your opinion to be confused by the facts,
> then don't read!!!
>
>
> anon wrote:
> > Dennis,
> >
> > I see you are back with your same old talking points.
>
>
> There's nothing like the facts to counter unfounded and false
> statements. My talking points stay the same, because they are the true
> facts. I, unlike people like you, don't have the luxury of changing or
> making up stories, or making up or passing on unfounded or untrue
> statements. So yes, you will read what I have to say over and over
> again, because those are the facts, much to your apparent dissatisfaction.
>
>
> > As has been explained, a finding of pilot error does not in any way
provide
> > an endorsement of your design.
>
>
> You know, there are people out there that even dispute the fact that
> America landed a man on the moon. It just does not matter how much
> evidence you put before them, or who provides the evidence, they choose
> not to believe it because that is what they want to disbelieve. I give
> you Federal accident reports followed up with further company reports,
> and still you choose to disbelieve, because that is contrary to what you
> want to believe. Even a horse is smart enough to drink water when you
> lead him to it enough times, but you will never believe because that is
> not what you want to believe, despite the proof or who prints it.
>
>
> > When your design failed, many pilots found
> > themselves unable to recover in a manner expected from certified
aircraft.
> > That is the standard. It does not address the design failures that
> > preceded the pilot errors. It does not address the design's ability to
> > recover from those failures.
>
>
> Wrong. Many Mini-500 owners say absolutely the opposite. In fact,
> attached is a report by the professional test pilot Ken Armstrong,
> giving the Mini-500 a brilliant review. The Mini-500 he flew the same
> bird that flew from Kansas City to Oshkosh, the same bird that flew at
> all the air shows. That Mini-500 was 100% stock all the way, built to
> factory specs with all factory mods.
>
>
> > You like to blame the dead, especially low-time dead pilots. You might
> > have forgotten that you marketed your kit to low-time pilots.
>
>
> I only tell the facts. I don't even want to talk about it, let alone
> blame live or dead people. But you really haven't given be any
> alternatives. You put me on the spot, you blame be for killing people
> with a bad design, you continually place me in a position demanding
> answers, and I can only answer with the facts. If I said it was not
> their fault, then I would be lying.
>
>
> > Let's look at the chronology again.
> > 1) Everybody gets excited when they see the Cicare CH-6 prototype fly.
> > 2) You and Cicare dissolve your partnership and you are left without a
> > helicopter to sell.
> > 3) Without access to Cicare's design or the CH-6 demonstration aircraft,
you
> > attempt to copy the design.
> > 4) While you are still designing your new helicopter, you continue to
market
> > and take orders for an unproven design
> > 5) You delivered kits without adequate testing, claiming TBO's of up to
2000
> > hours, when your prototype only had a a couple of hundred hours, at
most.
> > 6) You marketed your kits to low-time pilots
> > A classic bait and switch.
>
>
> You must write fictional books for living!! You have taken history and
> twisted it around to your satisfaction.
>
> I'll tell you what, I'll let Ken Armstrong's article in KitPlanes
> Magazine do the speaking for awhile. Ken has over 9000 hours flying 40
> different types of helicopters. He was a Military helicopter test pilot,
> and currently instructs in helicopters.
>
> BUT EVEN WITH A MAN WITH SUCH IMPECCABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND UNTARNISHED
> REPUTATION, someone here will find something to discredit him and his
> report on the Mini-500. The truth is written below, and yet some of you
> will refuse to believe, simply because it is contrary to what you want
> to believe.
>
> After all, you read all the bad stuff about the Mini-500 right here on
> this newsgroup by credible people, that you have never met or can even
> see and some that don't have names... so it must have been true, right????
>
>
> ********Mini Revolution********
>
> Where is Revolution Helicopter’s Mini-500 series heading?
>
> By Ken Armstrong
> KitPlanes Magazine
> November 1999 Issue
>
> The Revolution Mini 500 possesses an enviable sales record because of
> the strong demand for low-cost, kit-built helicopters. However,
> marketing success has created problems for the company and its owners.
> Revolution has difficulty keeping up with customer expectations, and
> some builders unrealistically expect the helicopter to be snag-¬free
> during ownership.
> In reality, the Mini 500 is no different from any homebuilt helicopter
> - or from any commercial helicopter ever produced. They have all
> experienced technical/design problems that required modification, and as
> a professional helicopter pilot since 1972, I was often the guinea pig
> who found out what those problems were. No helicopter design is perfect,
> and there is no fling-wing flying that does not have ongoing problems.
> What can you do if you own a Mini 500 or plan to buy one? Approach
> ownership with an open mind and anticipate some down time while you
> install modifications that Revolution considers mandatory for the safe
> operation of the helicopter. If you plan to buy a used Mini 500, ensure
> all of the mandatory modifications have been completed.
>
> Is the Mini 500 Safe?.....
> Any helicopter is only as safe as the pilot in command. There have been
> a number of Mini 500 crashes, a number of them resulting in fatalities,
> and there is a common thread among them. Accident data from Revolution
> and the NTSB, combined with witness reports, indicate there have been
> few if any mechanical failures that were not caused by improper
> maintenance. In fact, 100% of the crashes had a pilot error component,
> with 43% sharing maintenance/pilot error causal factors. Nearly 75% of
> the pilots involved in accidents had less than 100 hours rotary wing
> experience, and some didn't even have a helicopter rating (more on this
> subject in the flight evaluation). Failure to maintain adequate rotor
> rpm was a contributing factor in almost half of the accidents. Another
> factor was pilots flying with the wrong carburetor jets for the ambient
> conditions - an important consideration when operating these
> hard-working engines. Operating with a two-stroke engine entails a
> higher risk of engine failure than a four-stroke powerplant would, and
> pilots must always be prepared to carry out an autorotation.
> Another primary factor in the high accident rate for the Mini 500 (44
> accidents out of only a few hundred flying) is that there are many being
> flown by pilots with relatively little rotary experience, and in a few
> of the accidents the pilots weren't even licensed. In the case of an
> engine out, proper training and experience is critical.
> But other than the higher incidence of engine failures associated with
> two-stroke operation and pilot deficiencies, I don't see any particular
> safety risk associated with this helicopter, and I wouldn't hesitate to
> fly Mini 500s because the autorotative characteristics are quite
> reasonable in the event the Rotax takes a time out.
>
> Who Needs Politics?....
> I believe the greatest non-technical problem plaguing the Mini 500 is
> the polarization between Revolution and a small number of vocal,
> dissatisfied owners. Revolution President Dennis Fetters is blessed and
> cursed with a strong personality that has bolstered him with the drive
> to create the successful Air Command gyro series and now the affordable
> Mini helicopter series. But success often breeds problems, and keeping
> up with the calls for technical revisions while attempting to provide
> really good customer support has been a challenge at Revolution. As a
> result, some of the owners have formed the support group known as the
> International Helicopter Builders Association Inc. (IHBAI).
> Mentioning this group to Fetters is like waving a red flag at a bull.
> He feels the organization is trying to undermine his efforts and has
> been dishonest about its aims. The group says it simply wants to find
> fixes for Mini 500 problems typically agreed to as excessive vibration
> creating frame cracks and transmission gears manufactured by a third
> party that were not of sufficient hardness. For more details on these
> topics, see the May 1999 KITPLANES©.
> Having mentioned this builders group, I should add that I met many Mini
> 500 owners at Sun'n Fun who have experienced no problems with their
> helicopters and are having a blast with them. Responses to company
> questionnaires indicate that more than 90% of the attendees at company
> training programs are completely satisfied with Revolution's efforts. In
> the Internet era, it's all too easy for a few unhappy owners to promote
> their discontent.
>
> Builders Support Group....
> At the 1999 Sun'n Fun meeting, IHBAI members, under President Bill
> Phillips, decided they would not hire an engineering team to modify or
> fix the Mini 500's problems because they felt Revolution was adequately
> tackling the situation. The 14 attendees almost unanimously expressed a
> desire to work with the company on problems and fixes. However, Fetters
> wanted no association with this group. For the most part, I found these
> owners to be levelheaded and simply wanting a solution to their problems
> at a reasonable price so they could continue flying.
> Stan Robinson, president of U.S. AirPower, talked about the possibility
> of installing the three-cylinder, liquid cooled two-stroke engine
> currently undergoing flight test in the Revolution two-place Voyager,
> but this is unlikely in the near term, especially without Fetters'
blessing.
>
> Solutions Are at Hand....
> Fetters has always maintained that the company manufactures
> modifications quickly and prices them realistically to support his
> clients. After many hours of discussion with him, I can appreciate his
> point of view and feel the company is striving assiduously to correct
> deficiencies and expand the performance and safety envelope.
> Solving vibration problems has been a long slow process not because
> Revolution wasn't devoting a lot of time to the solution, but because
> rotor system dynamics are complex. The late model Talon (the model name
> for the improved Mini 500) I flew for this report had the latest
> refinements including mast support with rubber isolation, friction
> damper on the cyclic system and trimtabs on the rotor system. These
> refinements have apparently reduced the overall vibration level from 10
> IPS to 0.01 in hover and 0.1 at 95 mph. Revolution asserts that all of
> these modifications are recommended because they work together to
> significantly reduce vibration. Minimizing the shaking reduces wear and
> tear, extends component life and provides greater system reliability.
> All new kits include all of the mast support refinements.
> An Engine Information System (EIS) is a new option that constantly
> monitors cooling, fuel mixture, lubrication and power output for
> enhanced reliability. Although I have not evaluated this $675 package,
> it comes complete with all probes, wiring and displays to provide a
> visual warning in the form in a red light when an engine parameter has
> been exceeded. It’s like buying insurance.
>
> Power Enhancement Package....
> The factory demonstrator I flew at Sun 'n Fun, 500FD, had the optional
> power enhancement package (PEP) installed. The company recommends that
> every Mini 500 owner install this system to improve recovery from low
> rotor rpm. Faustino Padilla, a 240-pound Guatemalan pilot/owner who
> flies his Mini 500 from a base 5000 feet above sea level at very high
> temperatures, claims the PEP makes a world of difference to performance.
> The PEP system comprises a tuned exhaust system and special carburetion
> settings that provide an additional 18% hp and torque equating to an
> additional 138 pounds of lift, according to the company. Essentially,
> the engine is optimized for the narrow power band necessary for the
> helicopter application. Fetters believes that for $950, this is an
> inexpensive option that overcomes the need for a more powerful engine,
> which would be much more expensive.
>
> Flight Evaluation....
> I don't take flights in single-place helicopters lightly, and I've
> waited patiently for years for the fleet hours to accumulate
> demonstrating the inherent safety of the series (about 28,000 hours to
> date, according to Fetters). It was only after a detailed flight
> briefing and an impressive demonstration flight by Ricardo Aita, a
> company pilot, that I was prepared to place air under the skids. It
> turned out I was overly cautious-if that's possible.
> Fetters showed me the preferred method for entering the cockpit, and I
> found the seat firm but comfortable (firm is best for a number of safety
> reasons). The controls came readily to hand for this paunchy pilot of
> 200 pounds and average height. The control checks with friction off
> showed there was no binding or significant friction in the system, and
> the friction was then cranked on to meet the company wishes.
> I confirmed that the fuel valve was on, skipped the prime with the warm
> engine, closed the throttle, neutralized the controls and turned the
> master switch on. With the-seatbelt secured, I couldn't reach the
> ignition switch, so I had selected both in advance and used the cyclic
> mounted starter button to bring the Mini to life. It started easily, and
> I idled a short time until the Rotax 582's coolant reached the bottom of
> the green. Raising the collective at idle produced a low rotor rpm
> warning, the magneto check proved both ignition systems were operating
> correctly, and the throttle chop at operating rpm provided a needle
> split between the rotor and engine confirming the one-way driven clutch
> was operative.
> At this point, I wanted to eliminate all friction in the control but
> was advised by the company pilot that it was preferable to leave
> considerable resistance in the controls. Later I learned that this was
> to reduce some of the vibration and stick shake. Although many pilots
> prefer to have considerable resistance in the system to minimize pilot
> overcontrolling, I prefer no stick trim or friction. I found that the
> collective requires some friction in the system or it will rise on its
> own during flight-not unusual in some helicopters. Moreover, if a pilot
> leaves the cockpit with the engine running, the helicopter could lift
> off if the collective is not locked down with a mechanical device or
> adequate friction.
>
> Getting Acquainted....
> Initially, I had some difficulty mentally adapting to the pedals, which
> are shaped like foot rests and move in a slightly different axis
> compared to standard pedals. However, after 15 minutes or so of
> hovering, I found my body and brain had made the conversion quite
> readily. I also found the throttle system friction quite high, and this
> resulted in my chasing the engine/rotor rpm somewhat at first-especially
> since the correlation system doesn't do it all automatically for the
> pilot. However, owners can remove the engine access cover and readily
> adjust the throttle friction from no resistance to absolutely locked.
> The skill of keeping the rotor rpm at the top of the green can be quite
> a challenge for pilots like me who normally fly automatically governed
> turbine equipment. My natural fumbling at rotor speed control coupled
> with my intentional effort to establish the outside parameters allowed
> me to get a really good feeling for the Mini's rotor inertia. It also
> allowed me a glimpse into the scenarios that low-time pilots might
> encounter and that could lead to the low-rotor-rpm accidents that occur
> all too often.
> Once I got a handle on the power lever, it was obvious the Mini was a
> delight to hover and play with in the ground cushion. It was virtually
> free of any noticeable vibration at the recommended rotor speed of
> 104%-positive proof that the Revolution fixes really work in the hover.
> As the rotor speed falls below 96%, some minor vibration creeps in.
> However, this is below the normal range and of no real significance
> during typical operations.
> With the doors off, visibility was excellent in most directions with
> minor visual barriers straight down due to the floor and to the sides
> due to the doorframes. Nothing unusual there. The Mini had 9 gallons of
> fuel on board during the initial takeoff, and the nearly sea level OAT
> was 75°F.
> Fetters says that most problems on this engine are related to poor fuel
> or jetting problems, and after taking a Rotax maintenance course, I know
> this to be true in general on two-strokes. As I personally added
> high-quality, filtered gas for our operations, I was comfortable with
> the anticipated engine reliability and experimented with a broad
> spectrum of operating rpms and altitudes. Although the rotor speed's
> normal operating range is 96-104%, I conducted operations beyond these
> limits and found no unacceptable characteristics.
> The combination of relatively high rotor inertia and a sensitive
> throttle system results in pilots new to the type chasing the rotor rpm,
> but prolonged hovering operations can teach them effective rotor speed
> control. While operation in the low yellow rotor rpm band is not
> recommended, I found the helicopter had adequate power to recover from
> 90% or slightly less rotor rpm by milking the collective downward
> slightly while fully opening the throttle.
> Under the ambient conditions, full throttle produced the following
> maximum hover height/rpm combinations: 6 foot hover attainable at 100%,
> 10 feet at 102% and 15+ feet at 104%. The recommended takeoff power is
> 104%, so the PEP would obviously produce more than sufficient power for
> hovering with the skids approximately 2 feet off the ground at
> considerably higher altitudes and/or with much heavier pilots. Unless
> you are operating well above 5000-foot density altitude, it would appear
> that this engine with the optional PEP is adequate in terms of power
> output (assuming that the engine is kept well tuned, with the correct
> jets for the ambient con¬ditions, and approved, fresh fuel).
>
> Control Authority....
> During a lengthy period of hovering that resulted in improved rotor
> speed control as the Mini and I became acquainted, I was able to conduct
> numerous hovering autorotations, and I found the Mini had plenty of
> rotor inertia to permit gentle touchdowns - even with a slightly drooped
> rotor rpm. Over two days, with varying winds, I confirmed that the 20
> mph sideways and rearward maximum recommended flight speeds were
> conservative and safely flown with no tendency to exceed or even
> challenge the tail rotor's capability. There was plenty of control
> authority during all maneuvers, and the tail rotor seemed to have as
> much power as would ever be necessary at this density altitude. (No
> high-altitude testing was conducted during these profiles.) This Hughes
> 500 lookalike also transitions through translational lift quite
> smoothly, and I noted a distinct absence of measurable vibration under
> all flight conditions up to 30 mph indicated.
> Circuit restrictions, gusty winds and smoke from a forest fire shut
> down operations on my second day of flying, so I was unable to conduct a
> lot of straight and level flying at normal cruising speeds. Fetters
> wasn't keen on my flying in those conditions at all, but my schedule
> wouldn't permit a later flight, so I was committed to flying when many
> of the other gyroplanes and helicopters chose to sit it out.
> Nonetheless, the helicopter flew smoothly up to the maximum speed of 75
> mph - an air-traffic induced limit. I wasn't overly comfortable flying
> this lightweight under such conditions, but the company pilot who had 60
> hours on type subsequently flew the demo in an aggressive and accurate
> demonstration program with absolutely no difficulty.
> The Mini is not only responsive but also surprisingly stable in
> hovering operations, handling like a much larger helicopter. After only
> 20 minutes in type it was fairly easy to knock over the orange cone
> markers with a skid and then stand them up again. This can be
> challenging with any helicopter, and it was surprising to be able to
> accomplish this intricate task with so little time in type.
>
> Cautious Considerations....
> The pilot's operating handbook cautions pilots to apply aft cyclic
> while the collective is being lowered after high-speed engine failures
> to minimize the helicopter's tendency to nose over. It also advises
> avoiding low G maneuvers to avoid chopping off the tail boom. These are
> standard cautions with any helicopter. Also, there is a large area of
> the height-velocity envelope to be avoided during low-speed and high
> hovering operations. I conducted autorotations while within the edges of
> the avoid area, and the chart is conservative. However, this is another
> way a company can build in additional safety margins for pilots.
> The major limitation of the helicopter is that it is hoisted aloft by a
> two-stroke engine. Two-strokes can be reasonably reliable if owners
> perform the suggested maintenance schedule recommended by Rotax, but
> these powerplants do require a lot of fiddling with jetting anytime a
> significant temperature or operating altitude is encountered to meet the
> carb/mixture/EGT requirements and limitations. Pilot/owners should
> follow the recommended procedures to keep their engines in optimum
> health. They should also ensure that their autorotational skills are
honed.
> Now that I have logged a few flights on the updated version of the
> Mini-500 series, it's difficult to understand the tempest that has
> ensued between the company and a few owners - unless one considers the
> personalities involved. The 500 not only looks great, it flies well and
> appears to be free of significant vices.
> Helicopters are not toys, and they are not easy for low-time pilots to
> fly well. But they offer an excellent challenge for pilots who wish to
> rise above common pilot skills - vertically. The Mini, especially with
> PEP, boasts heaps of power for hot-and-heavy conditions and a blistering
> cruising speed for a low-cost helicopter. All this and measly operating
> expense, too.
> Revolution's current offerings have solved the initial problems common
> with the introduction of a new type, and the company is well positioned
> to increase customer service and success in the market.
>
>

I'm curious as to why this discussion showed up here vs. the starved
rec.aviation. rotorcraft? This NG is hurting for any rotorcraft discussion.

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:07:59 GMT, cavelamb himself
> > wrote:
>
> >Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:45:48 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>A quick check on the NTSB site shows eight more accidents between
1/1/1998
> >>>and present date. Three of them were fatal. Four in 1998, two in 2000,
two
> >>>in 2002, and _nothing_ since then, thank goodness.
> >>
> >>
> >> A more detailed check shows 16 Mini-500 accidents between 1/1/1998 and
> >> 12/31/2000. Same period saw 28 Rotorway accidents.
> >>
> >> Between 2002 and 2005, four Mini-500s, 29 Rotorways.
> >>
> >> Ron Wanttaja
> >
> >I'd almost credit those numbers to the difference in rotor inertia.
> >
> >The Rotorway has a very light (relatively) rotor system with
> >correspondingly lower rotor inertia.
> >
> >Big difference between 1-2 seconds to dump the collective vs 4-5.
> >
> >Maintain thy rotor RPM lest the Earth rise up and smite thee...
>
> An aviation writer friend of mine went to a Robinson training session
> a few years ago. He said you had 1.3 seconds to dump the collective
> in the R22.
>
> He was thinking of writing an article and calling it "Small Helicopter
> Safety: Myth or Fable?"

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> Dennis: Ken's article referred to a vibration level in the Mini of 10 IPS
> before the mast and other mods were made. Is this accurate? I've never
> experienced more than 2.0 IPS in my Baby Belle and it got my immediate
> attention.


Dear Stuart @ Kathryn,

Sorry to take so long to answer, I was out of the country on a business
trip.

Thank you for reading the KitPlanes article. You are correct in thinking
the IPS level in the article is to high. That was a typo. It is supposed
to read "1.0", not "10".


BTW my wife's comment that it had to have two seats stopped me
> from buying a Mini. I've talked to a few Mini drivers who seem to be
> satisfied with their ride. My experience with the magazine has indicated
> there is a wide variety of helicopter owners and what they look for as good
> in a ship.


Yes, we have had many happy owners, as you can see in the old KitPlanes
Completions section of the magazine.

Thank you for taking the time to write the nice comments, and best of luck.

Most sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:56:56 -0800, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>I'm curious as to why this discussion showed up here vs. the starved
>rec.aviation. rotorcraft? This NG is hurting for any rotorcraft discussion.

This is a "homebuilders group" so it sounds logical to me.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>>I'm curious as to why this discussion showed up here vs. the starved
>>rec.aviation. rotorcraft? This NG is hurting for any rotorcraft discussion.
>
>This is a "homebuilders group" so it sounds logical to me.
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-

Hi Roger.

Something logical about choppers?

P.S.
ARRL group does not meet here, either. :-)



Barnyard BOb - native of Hartford

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:19:31 -0600, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:

>
>>>I'm curious as to why this discussion showed up here vs. the starved
>>>rec.aviation. rotorcraft? This NG is hurting for any rotorcraft discussion.
>>
>>This is a "homebuilders group" so it sounds logical to me.
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-
>
>Hi Roger.
>
>Something logical about choppers?

It's not logical, but I've always wanted to get the rating.
>

Then again when people look at that K1A5 IO-540 and then the engine
mount on the front of the G-III fuselage they almost always utter
those famous words, "You're going to put that...Where?"

>P.S.
>ARRL group does not meet here, either. :-)

Sure we do. Didn't any one give your the recognition sign. We have to
talk in code so no one recognizes us, unless we start talking about
BPL.<:-))

73

Roger

>
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - native of Hartford
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com